The AR-15 is too powerful to be allowed into the hands of civilians in the United States.

[MusicForTheDeaf]

 

[Sct73]

But ASSAULT WEAPONS kill CHILDREN.

Remember SANDY HOOK.

The person behind the gun kills not the gun itself. Are you gonna ban cars because a drunk kills some kids in a terrible accident?

 

[Lifestyle66]

Before you make comments like this you should research ArmaLite AR-15. You will discover the AR-15 was the basis for the US M-16. The original AR-15 was a Caliber 5.56mm, not a .22 caliber like the AR-5 or AR-7.

Before you ASSume that I don't know what I said, or that I don't know the AR-15/M-16 relationship, stop and think about what the OP said.

The .223 caliber round is not "powerful". So, any weapon firing that round is not "too powerful" to be in the hands of a civilian. MOST hunting rifles are far more "powerful". And my second post was a picture of another "weapon of war" (that scary term), the M-1 Garand, a commonly used weapon of war from World War Two. But it fired a heavier bullet.

The .223 cal./5.56mm round was chosen by the U.S. military because of its light weight. Since the bullets fired by infantrymen in combat mostly miss their targets, more rounds sent down range is better. And the lighter, less powerful round for the M-16 meant infantrymen could carry almost twice as much ammo. The only thing which might allow infantrymen to carry yet even more ammo than the 5.56 mm would be .22 LR. However, the .22 LR has a much shorter range and far less penetration power.

The saving grace for the trade-off of accepting the 5.56 mm round for the infantry versus the .30-06 used by the M-1 was the boat-tail shape of the new bullet, which caused the bullet to rotate in flight around the point of the projectile, instead of spinning along the long axis. This shift in the projectile's angle at the point of impact meant that it didn't push its way straight through the target like a spear, but instead tumbled off in a different direction causing more soft-tissue damage. It was thought by the military planners that this would cause more wounded enemy rather than dead enemy, thus requiring other enemy soldiers to care for them. (Whether true or not, that was part of their thought process.)

My whole point is that the crazy logic used by the anti-gun crowd to push for a ban on the AR-15 is uninformed and merely using "scare tactics" to try convincing other uninformed people. The AR-15 merely LOOKS scary, and you should be afraid and agree that it's too scary to allow public ownership. And once they get that ban in place, they'll move on to the next scary thing, etc.

The fact is that regardless of the machine, tool, or chemical used to deliberately kill others, it is in the hand of the wacko and the intent of the crazy mind which is determined to do the killing! Knives do not thrust themselves into a body. Gasoline doesn't pour itself onto a body and spontaneously ignite. And bullets don't pop out of a gun to hit another body without the human hand directing the action!

If anyone REALLY wants to reduce and stop mass killings, look for the root cause! It ALWAYS starts with the crazy mind of the killer!

 

[cacti1967]

Hilarious post!

Certainly is. The media + ignorant libs, portray the AR15 as an assault weapon.
Even call it an automatic weapon.
None is remotely true. Yes I own an AR15.5.56/ .223 caliber. It will definitely kill a person
I was a combat/ Infantry soldier in Vietnam. I've seen what this caliber can do. It ain't pretty. I carried a M16 w/ a M203 grenade launcher underneath.
They are two separate animals. The only way you can buy a gun capable of full auto fire is buying a Federal stamp $200, then sit & wait for Fed. approval.
Next road block is finding one & being able to afford one. Around $ 20K on up.
So the average Joe is not going to own on. Self included.
Sorry about the long post, but it needs an explanation.

 

[MusicForTheDeaf]

Certainly is. The media + ignorant libs, portray the AR15 as an assault weapon.
Even call it an automatic weapon.
None is remotely true. Yes I own an AR15.5.56/ .223 caliber. It will definitely kill a person
I was a combat/ Infantry soldier in Vietnam. I've seen what this caliber can do. It ain't pretty. I carried a M16 w/ a M203 grenade launcher underneath.
They are two separate animals. The only way you can buy a gun capable of full auto fire is buying a Federal stamp $200, then sit & wait for Fed. approval.
Next road block is finding one & being able to afford one. Around $ 20K on up.
So the average Joe is not going to own on. Self included.
Sorry about the long post, but it needs an explanation.

The .223/5.56 is too powerful for civilians and should be banned.

 

[grumpyoldperv]

The .223/5.56 is too powerful for civilians and should be banned.

Perhaps you should read some of the replies to this thread which YOU started. Most are intelligent, informed, and worded not to embarrass or offend, but to educate. Realistically, the .223/5.56 is much less powerful than my 30.06, my 12 gauge shotgun, or my .300 magnum. All look much more innocuous than my wife's .223 but will unalive you more efficiently.

 

[Tigersman]

I once owned a 1923 Kregg Jorgenson. It was a 7.62 x 55. The charge was as big as a 30-30 while the bullet looked like a .22 cal. When fired it went in small but tore a huge hole coming out. In short, I made a mess.

 

[Sct73]

The AR-15 is too powerful and dangerous to be allowed into the hands of civilians in the United States.

We shouldn't allow civilians to own AR-15s any more than we should allow civilians to own CBRN weapons.

Stop hating on the tool (weapon) and direct your hate where it needs to be, the idiot behind the tool. The problem is not a gun problem it’s a mental problem.